About the Science vs Religion Debate

[chomerics]

I dont know if you read my earlier post, but this thread had nothing to do with public schools. I was venting at people who believe in science but refuse to study science.....

Anyway, your comment confuses me: Did you find religion to be hypocritical, or the people who practice religion?

I find organized religion itself hypocritical, not people who practice. I can come up with numerous examples, such as Pat Robertson, Dobson, Fallwell, Cardinal Law, the "healing priests" and a number of others. I look at these people as extremely hypocritical, as they use religion as a means of making money, nothing else. They disobey some of the basic tennants of religion, and thus IMO, they are hypocrites.

Having grown up in a religious environment, You've probably heard the story of the disciple Thomas. Thomas didn't believe that Jesus had risen from the grave, even after all the other disciples had. The Bible quotes Thomas as saying, "Not unless I can see the holes of the nails and put my fingers through them, will I believe". He kinda said to God, I'm not going to believe you until you prove yourself.

I don't believe in the New Testament as a factual book. I look at it as a alogory used to portray Jesus as Constantine wanted jesus to be portrayed, as the son of god. I believe the advent of Christianity was used more or less as a political tool to gain power over the masses. Constatine wanted to show the people that "god was on his side", so he created what we now know as christianity. Many many things were taken from other religions. . . Christmas is not celebrating the birth of Jesus, but was a way to convert Pagans who worshiped the Sun god. The holy eucharist is taken from other religions where canibalism of the gods was considered becoming a god, The resurection was taken from other religions, as well as the resurection and the holy trinity. Just because the bible says it is so does not mean that it is true, in fact a thorough investegation into the origins of christianity lead me to believe it was merely a political stunt used to garner more power for Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Well the passage goes on to show that the God proved himself to Thomas when Jesus came into the locked room and said, "go ahead, put your finger through the holes." Thomas immediately said My Lord and My God.

Jesus concluded with "Thomas, because you have seen me, you believe. Blessed are those that have not seen and yet have believed."

I wanted to point that out, because it seems that many people who study science have adopted attitudes similar to that of Thomas. Where we believe only that which we see and know to be true. But DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH WE DO NOT KNOW, YET STILL BELIEVE?

The story of doubting Thomas is also a fable taken in other religions, and it is a propaganda technique. What happened to Thomas? You see, there are consequences for not believing, this is everywhere in the bible, especially the old testament. The consequences are drastic too, things like a life in hell or purgatory. . . not quite m idea of converting people. I think you should allow people to make up their own decisions, because using the "fear card" is an argument when you are trying to hide a falliy IMO.

If science is not the main reason for your disbelief in God, I my question still stands to those for whom it applies, but I question now on a different level.

Why is religion hypocritical?

Because a LOT of the leaders do NOT practice what they preach. A lot of the history of the church was stolen from outer religions, and the church leaders have recinded on many many false truths when proven wrong by science. It isn't something that I say lightly, as I think there is ample evidence for the belief.

[HOF44]

I said by COMMON definition, cus beleive it or not most people are not scientists, most of us are commoners. By COMMON definition they are both theories, if scientists want to get their little panties in a wad for using their sacred word, then they should realized that when you compare things you have to bring it to the COMMON denominator. I am not comparing Evolution in a religious light, though I could, so why do you insist on comparing Creationism in a scientific light?

The reason why evolution is a theory and not law is because there is not enough evidence to back it up. I can say that I felt the wind therefore God exists, I could consider that my factual evidence. My point is that they are both COMMON theories, no more no less.

This kind of thought is unsettling, these kinds of beliefs without proof or question is what leads to all the chaos in the middle east going on now. You have to realize other religions are just as sure and fervent in thier beliefs as you are in yours.

[dchogs]

The main FACT in support of Creationism is that something CANNOT come from nothing. You ignor the concept but it does not ignor you.

You can debate big bang, evolution or any other scientific topic and we can look at evidence.

What you and science can not do at this point is refute the theory that this universe was created. I am certain that many scientists are offended by the concepts of Creationism. I would argue that they should not offended. They are in the process of understanding that which has been created.

The only way that a scientist would be offended by the theory of Creationism is if indeed that scientist believes in his heart that he, and not God, is the basis for the revelation of our universe. I assure you no scientist, no matter how illuminary, can lay claim to the creation of this universe. No matter powerful they feel in the depths of discovery.

Science does not create, it discovers that which is created.

that doesn't support creationism, it is a valid point that questions evolution/big bang. it's a valid point that, as chom mentioned, is being studied. and you're right, science cannot refute the idea that the universe was created at this point in time. whether or not it will be able to in the future is another question.

personally, as a scientist, i'm not offended by creationism at all. i just don't think that it should be presented as a scientific theory in or out of the classroom.

[HOF44]

I don't believe in the New Testament as a factual book. I look at it as a alogory used to portray Jesus as Constantine wanted jesus to be portrayed, as the son of god. I believe the advent of Christianity was used more or less as a political tool to gain power over the masses. Constatine wanted to show the people that "god was on his side", so he created what we now know as christianity. Many many things were taken from other religions. . . Christmas is not celebrating the birth of Jesus, but was a way to convert Pagans who worshiped the Sun god. The holy eucharist is taken from other religions where canibalism of the gods was considered becoming a god, The resurection was taken from other religions, as well as the resurection and the holy trinity. Just because the bible says it is so does not mean that it is true, in fact a thorough investegation into the origins of christianity lead me to believe it was merely a political stunt used to garner more power for Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Props to you chrom. I believe along the same lines as you, but don't ussually go there in a thread like this because most times it turns the thread to name calling crap.

Christianity is very touchy about the historical record of the bible.

Not to mention the translation the bible parts have gone through, who knows what it originaly said.

[portisizzle]

that doesn't support creationism, it is a valid point that questions evolution/big bang. it's a valid point that, as chom mentioned, is being studied. and you're right, science cannot refute the idea that the universe was created at this point in time. whether or not it will be able to in the future is another question.

personally, as a scientist, i'm not offended by creationism at all. i just don't think that it should be presented as a scientific theory in or out of the classroom.

You are a scientist?

Can you make this simple mathematical formula work.....

a X 0 = something other than zero

The beginning of our universe is based upon the creation of matter where none previously existed. Thus matter was created. Where am I falling short here?

[70th Week]

has cromerics ever heard of the dead sea scrolls or the written accounts of Jesus through his disciples?They were written before constatine.

[Predicto]

I have just noticed something important about this thread that explains a lot.

Portissizzle is NOT talking about the same kind of "creationism" as the rest of us.

He is taking about whether there was a creation, something out of nothing, sometime in the past. A very interesting and important question.

For the rest of us, "creationism" is a shorthand term for the Intelligent Design school of biological thought. The one that says the earth is young, all species (or kinds") were created in their essential forms as stated in Genesis, and that they do not change into something else. In other words, that we did not evolve from apes, and we need to stop teaching students that we did.

Those are two very different things indeed.

.

Or else Portis is just stirring the pot :laugh:

[chomerics]

I said by COMMON definition, cus beleive it or not most people are not scientists, most of us are commoners. By COMMON definition they are both theories, if scientists want to get their little panties in a wad for using their sacred word, then they should realized that when you compare things you have to bring it to the COMMON denominator. I am not comparing Evolution in a religious light, though I could, so why do you insist on comparing Creationism in a scientific light?

Because you are saying they are equal, and they should be taught as equals.

The reason why evolution is a theory and not law is because there is not enough evidence to back it up. I can say that I felt the wind therefore God exists, I could consider that my factual evidence. My point is that they are both COMMON theories, no more no less.

You are changing the definition to suit your purposes whether you realize it or not. You are taking evolution as a scientific theory, which has a MUCH MUCH more rigid standard for its definition, and degrading the scientific definition to suit your purposes.

Using the COMMON as you say theory, why should we not teach about the flying spaghetti monster? They are both "theories" in your sense of the word, so using your logic, we should ALSO teach about the flying spaghetti monster right?

This is where you lose the argument. You claim that evolution is a theory and not a fact, but you use the scientific definition, then you use a lax definition of a theory to say creationism is a theory. Is is false logic and a failed argument. You have to chose a base standard through which everything is defined. If you use your COMMON definition of the word theory, then evolution would be a law, because there is much mich evidence proving it. If you use the scientific word theory, then creationism can not hold up to the scrutny of examination because there is no evidence debating it.

Do you see where your error lies? Do you understand why you can NOT put both of them in the same sentence, or do you want me to explain it to you in a different way?

I am saying this not to insult you, but to try to explain why you are wrong to equate the two, and chage the standard and definition of which one is held but not the other. Like I mentioned before, the flying spaghetti monster has as much valididty to be a theoru, using your lax definition, as creationism does.

[dchogs]

You are a scientist?

Can you make this simple mathematical formula work.....

a X 0 = something other than zero

The beginning of our universe is based upon the creation of matter where none previously existed. Thus matter was created. Where am I falling short here?

yes and no. i currently teach science, but was an active participant in the past. though, i'm sure you were not asking that question in earnest but were attempting to belittle. byegones.

and i know basic math.

chom has posted that the current direction of astrophysics is looking at the interaction of dark and light matter to see what happens. who knows what they'll find? people also used to think a god wheeled the sun around the sky in his flying chariot pulled by his flying horse. science changed that idea and we look at those beliefs as quaint stories that those silly, uneducated romans believed.

[DarkLadyRaven]

I find organized religion itself hypocritical, not people who practice. I can come up with numerous examples, such as Pat Robertson, Dobson, Fallwell, Cardinal Law, the "healing priests" and a number of others. I look at these people as extremely hypocritical, as they use religion as a means of making money, nothing else. They disobey some of the basic tennants of religion, and thus IMO, they are hypocrites.

.

I am on a different bent then you Chrom. It has been instilled in me that the Bible is correct but I believe that translations of it have scewed the books over the centeries like though must not suffer a witch to live was more than likely thou shall not suffer a poisioner to live.

But I do beleive that people that practice relgion and claim to love and live by Jesus are the hypocrits in religion.

I grew up with mixed messages such as You must obey your husband and honor him but your father was a dirty bum so thats why I divorced him or my favorite talking about co workers using ****es and then stating to me that a good christian does not not judge others and loves others.

Its very easy to get turned off esp when in schools ALL of the nicest people I knew where not christian. Most of the meanest and nastiest it terms of making fun of me and beating me up where christians. ( I was not a popualr child by far)

Christ and God = great perfect and divine

Christians = are not perfect ( to be expected though), not even trying to be better or follow christ, using christianity as an insureance policy so they can not be in hell which is purely a selfish motive and far from the reason of pleasing God for you love God

[portisizzle]

yes and no. i currently teach science, but was an active participant in the past. though, i'm sure you were not asking that question in earnest but were attempting to belittle.

You are sure I was belittling you? No, I was asking a serious question that is the basis of my argument.

[rincewind]

This is the first time i've heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I google'd it - this is BRILLIANT!

I want one of those 'darwin fish' car decals with FSM in the middle. This is great!

[chomerics]

The main FACT in support of Creationism is that something CANNOT come from nothing. You ignor the concept but it does not ignor you.

That is not a fact to support creationism, there is an absence of facts and you are using it to define something which you do not know. That is not something I am ignoring, it is something you overlook. The big bang theory does not take into account how matter was created, but because it deosn't take it into account does not make the theory any less valid.

Again, the absence of facts is not proof for creationism. You need to bring something to the table in terms of facts.

You can debate big bang, evolution or any other scientific topic and we can look at evidence.

What you and science can not do at this point is refute the theory that this universe was created. I am certain that many scientists are offended by the concepts of Creationism. I would argue that they should not offended. They are in the process of understanding that which has been created.

But creationism does nothing to answer this question. It says something creeated us, that is nothing more then conjecture, and the flying spaghetti monster closely aligns itself to creationism, they are one in the same ideas using our logic. Again the absence of understanding is not proof of anything, it just means we don't understand it. You can choose to believe in what you want, but it idoes not have any more significance then the flying spaghetti monster.

The only way that a scientist would be offended by the theory of Creationism is if indeed that scientist believes in his heart that he, and not God, is the basis for the revelation of our universe. I assure you no scientist, no matter how illuminary, can lay claim to the creation of this universe. No matter powerful they feel in the depths of discovery.

It is the word that I take sharp offense to, it is not a theory, and you hare holding one form to a ludicrous standard in order to minimilize the importance, and holding another to NO standard to equate the two. If is wrong to compare the two, and it is more inline with believing in santa clause and the tooth fairy.

Science does not create, it discovers that which is created.

You need proof to claim that creationism exists, just because science doesn;t understand that part of nature yet does not make you right.

Let me ask you this, what if science came out tomorrow, and states. . . well, we've figured it out. The big bang comes from this happening, and we've created a mini one in a lab. There is where the matter came from and this is how our universe evolved. Would you STILL say that creatonism exists, or would you admit you were wrong? For some reason, I think you'd change the definition again. . . like the earth being created in 7 days, the earth being 3000 years old, like Noah's are, Moses and everything else in bible.

[dchogs]

You are sure I was belittling you? No, I was asking a serious question that is the basis of my argument.

sorry for using a common phrase. i should have stated that "it is my hypothesis that you are belittling me." anyway, i also put "byegones" there meaning no harm no foul. i'm not bent over this. (that's "i'm not mad or frustrated, or emotional about this topic." ).

[chomerics]

This is the first time i've heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I google'd it - this is BRILLIANT!

I want one of those 'darwin fish' car decals with FSM in the middle. This is great!

:laugh: I think it was DarkLadyRaven who used it the first time, but I'm not sure.

It is brilliant though

[portisizzle]

Portissizzle is NOT talking about the same kind of "creationism" as the rest of us.

He is taking about whether there was a creation, something out of nothing, sometime in the past. A very interesting and important question.

For the rest of us, "creationism" is a shorthand term for the Intelligent Design school of biological thought. The one that says the earth is young, all species (or kinds") were created in their essential forms as stated in Genesis, and that they do not change into something else. In other words, that we did not evolve from apes, and we need to stop teaching students that we did.

Those are two very different things indeed.

Interesting take considering the fact that I am arguing the point knowing in advance science can not answer the question.

I suppose we can talk about Chromes thoughts on creation of matter out of nothing. But he himself says that is just talk right now.

Predicto, I think once you come to the understanding that there was a beginning to all of this, you are left with a understanding that all of this was created.

If you want to take the path that says this creation was completed void of God, I will walk it with you. Just know that once you walk the path with me you will have left science behind and taken this leap of faith that we have been talking about.

Are you comfortable with a leap of faith?

[cakmoney61]

I am on a different bent then you Chrom. It has been instilled in me that the Bible is correct but I believe that translations of it have scewed the books over the centeries like though must not suffer a witch to live was more than likely thou shall not suffer a poisioner to live.

But I do beleive that people that practice relgion and claim to love and live by Jesus are the hypocrits in religion.

I grew up with mixed messages such as You must obey your husband and honor him but your father was a dirty bum so thats why I divorced him or my favorite talking about co workers using ****es and then stating to me that a good christian does not not judge others and loves others.

Its very easy to get turned off esp when in schools ALL of the nicest people I knew where not christian. Most of the meanest and nastiest it terms of making fun of me and beating me up where christians. ( I was not a popualr child by far)

Christ and God = great perfect and divine

Christians = are not perfect ( to be expected though), not even trying to be better or follow christ, using christianity as an insureance policy so they can not be in hell which is purely a selfish motive and far from the reason of pleasing God for you love God

So I if walk up to you and tell you that I'm an elephant, you would believe me? Because a person says he or she is a Christian doesn't make him or her a Christian. The life they live will validate that profession. Even if you gave me the benefit of the doubt, you will see by the way I live that I'm not an elephant.

[portisizzle]

. You need to bring something to the table in terms of facts.

a x 0 = 0

That is as simple as it gets.

The formula you are looking for is

a x 0 = something other than zero.

Ask you scientific buddies. My theory is Creationism and my proof is a x 0 = something other than zero. Prove me wrong.

[chomerics]

I dont know if you read my earlier post, but this thread had nothing to do with public schools. I was venting at people who believe in science but refuse to study science.....

Anyway, your comment confuses me: Did you find religion to be hypocritical, or the people who practice religion?

I find organized religion itself hypocritical, not people who practice. I can come up with numerous examples, such as Pat Robertson, Dobson, Fallwell, Cardinal Law, the "healing priests", terrorists, Fred Phelps, and a number of others. I look at these people as extremely hypocritical, as they use religion as a means of making money, nothing else. They disobey some of the basic tennants of religion, and thus IMO, they are hypocrites.

Having grown up in a religious environment, You've probably heard the story of the disciple Thomas. Thomas didn't believe that Jesus had risen from the grave, even after all the other disciples had. The Bible quotes Thomas as saying, "Not unless I can see the holes of the nails and put my fingers through them, will I believe". He kinda said to God, I'm not going to believe you until you prove yourself.

I don't believe in the New Testament as a factual book. I look at it as alogory used to portray Jesus as Constantine wanted Jesus to be portrayed, as the son of god. I believe the advent of Christianity was used more or less as a political tool to gain power over the masses. Constatine wanted to show the people that "god was on his side", so he created what we now know as Christianity. Many many things were taken from other religions. . . Christmas is not celebrating the birth of Jesus, but was a way to convert Pagans who worshiped the Sun god. The holy eucharist is taken from other religions where canibalism of the gods was considered becoming a god, The resurection was taken from other religions, as well as the holy trinity. Just because the bible says it is so does not mean that it is true, in fact a thorough investegation into the origins of christianity lead me to believe it was merely a political stunt used to garner more power for Constantine at the Council of Nicea.

Well the passage goes on to show that the God proved himself to Thomas when Jesus came into the locked room and said, "go ahead, put your finger through the holes." Thomas immediately said My Lord and My God.

Jesus concluded with "Thomas, because you have seen me, you believe. Blessed are those that have not seen and yet have believed."

I wanted to point that out, because it seems that many people who study science have adopted attitudes similar to that of Thomas. Where we believe only that which we see and know to be true. But DO YOU REALIZE HOW MUCH WE DO NOT KNOW, YET STILL BELIEVE?

The story of doubting Thomas is also a fable taken in other religions, and it is a propaganda technique. What happened to Thomas? You see, there are consequences for not believing, this is everywhere in the bible, especially the old testament. The consequences are drastic too, things like a life in hell or purgatory. . . not quite my idea of converting people. I think you should allow people to make up their own decisions, because using the "fear card" is an argument when you are trying to hide a fallacy IMO.

If science is not the main reason for your disbelief in God, I my question still stands to those for whom it applies, but I question now on a different level.

Why is religion hypocritical?

Because a LOT of the leaders do NOT practice what they preach. A lot of the history of the church was stolen from outer religions, and the church leaders have recinded on many many false truths when proven wrong by science. It isn't something that I say lightly, as I think there is ample evidence for the belief. If you want me to explain more, I will. People here know if anything, I am not at a loss for words or afraid of confrontation. . . although I don't know how much of a good thing this is

[portisizzle]

Let me ask you this, what if science came out tomorrow, and states. . . well, we've figured it out. The big bang comes from this happening, and we've created a mini one in a lab. There is where the matter came from and this is how our universe evolved. Would you STILL say that creatonism exists, or would you admit you were wrong? For some reason, I think you'd change the definition again. . . like the earth being created in 7 days, the earth being 3000 years old, like Noah's are, Moses and everything else in bible.

If science come out tomorrow and explains the big bang as a point in fact comperable to evolution then we will have proven what? According to your example, you would have proven Creationism.

Does that scare you Chrome?

[chomerics]

Ask you scientific buddies. My theory is Creationism and my proof is a x 0 = something other than zero. Prove me wrong.

Like I stated before, because something is not defined by science is not proof of something else.

Prove the flying spaghetti monster didn't create everything. If ax0 doesn't =0, then that therefor means the flying spaghetti monster exists right ?

[HOF44]

a x 0 = 0

That is as simple as it gets.

The formula you are looking for is

a x 0 = something other than zero.

Ask you scientific buddies. My theory is Creationism and my proof is a x 0 = something other than zero. Prove me wrong.

Here you go give this a read. I copied a little snippet below.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!

Well, problem solved, the reason we can't get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something!

But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe,

that we mistakenly thought was nothing?

Maybe we should do further research!

Not really answers but intersting none the less.

[chomerics]

If science come out tomorrow and explains the big bang as a point in fact comperable to evolution then we will have proven what? According to your example, you would have proven Creationism.

if you are taking a metaphysical approach to creationism, then I would agree with you. If you are looking at the problem as religous proof, then no I would not.

Does that scare you Chrome?

Not at all. I always look for the truth, and I have absolutely no problem admitting when I am wrong. I'll be the first one to say that I do not know everything, and if some one brings a good point to me, then I will change my opinion. It is how I chose to live my life. I base everything I believe on my observations, and it my thoughts are proven wrong, then I change my belief system. It scares me not one iota, and I invite criticizm and different thought. That is how you grow not only as a man, but also as a society and a species. Learning from your past mistakes and not repeating them in the future. Why do you think I loath Bush so much? Because of exactly that reason.

[chomerics]

Here you go give this a read. I copied a little snippet below.

http://www.whyevolution.com/nothing.html

PROBLEM! If nothing is something, it would seem to logically follow that there is NO nothing, there is only something!

Well, problem solved, the reason we can't get something from nothing is because there never was a nothing, there has always been only something!

But, what was the nature of the something that preceded our universe,

that we mistakenly thought was nothing?

Maybe we should do further research!

Not really answers but intersting none the less.

From your link. . .

"Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all. ... To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. ...

Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly.... this phenomenon has never been observed directly."...

That is what I was eluding to earlier. There is a remote probablility that a big bang will happen every 10^121 years spontaneously. In essence, this is something from nothing, and yes, quantum mechanics has some extremely strange charactoristics. Things popping in and out of existance for example.

[portisizzle]

Like I stated before, because something is not defined by science is not proof of something else.

Prove the flying spaghetti monster didn't create everything. If ax0 doesn't =0, then that therefor means the flying spaghetti monster exists right ?

Is the spaghetti monster a figment of your imagination?

You are ignoring my basic agrument here chrome.

1) Science can explain

2) Science will never create.

4) Science can not explain what created the universe

5) a x 0 = 0 therefor something can not come from nothing

6) But the universe was created because a x 0 does equal something other than zero.

Make fun of me if you want, I am dead serious. And I really do not care if it offends you and you science community or not. Creationism is a legitimate theory.

The only question remaining is if you beleive that a spaghetti monster created the universe or if a creator did it....oh or a third option, some antimatter / turning into matter thingy

Chrome = spaghetti monster

Portisizzle = god

End of conversation, it is dinner time without the kids tonight.